Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

You ask whether the competitive bidding requirements of section
21.901 of the Education Code apply to cumulative purchases from
one vendor that in the aggregate exceed $5,000. Relevant
portions of section 21.901 provide:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (e) or (f) of this
section, all contracts proposed to be made by any Texas public
school board for the purchase of any personal property shall be
submitted to competitive bidding when said property is valued at
$5,000, or more.

(b) Except as provided in Subsection (e) of this section, all
contracts proposed to be made by any Texas public school board
for the construction, maintenance, repair or renovation, of any
building or for materials used in said construction, maintenance,
repair or renovation shall be submitted to competitive bidding
when said contracts are valued at $5,000 or more.

Subsections (c), (e), and (f) provide exceptions that do not
appear to be relevant to your inquiry, and subsection (d)
provides for notice requirements.

We find no language in this or other sections of the Education
Code that would suggest that subsequent purchases from the same
vendor should be aggregated to achieve the $5,000 threshold that
requires competitive bidding requirements.

We note that Subchapter B, Chapter 271, of the Local Government
Code also regulates competitive bidding on public works contracts
by school districts and other governmental entities. That
subchapter supplies competitive bidding requirements for
contracts that require the expenditure of more than $10,000. As
was the case with section 23.901 of the Education Code, we find
no indication that cumulative purchases act together to trigger
the necessity of competitive bidding.

Generally, school districts are accorded substantial discretion
in these matters. As one of our courts of civil appeals has
explained, "[T]heir power in making such contracts is general,
and in the absence of limitations they are required merely to act
faithfully and in the exercise of their best judgment so as to
best serve the interest of their district." Stapleton v.
Trussell, 196 S.W. 269, 270 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1917, no
writ); Attorney General Opinion LO-88-7 (1988).

It is also a general rule that an attempt to avoid competitive
bidding requirements by the division of a job into parts renders
the resultant contracts void. See Kelly v. Cochran County, 82
S.W.2d 641 (Tex.1935); Fonder v. City of South Sioux Falls, 71
N.W.2d 618 (S.D.1955); 53 A.L.R.2d 493. See also Local Gov't
Code s 271.028.

If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact us.